Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,772 Posts
Guess what will happen, if you guys have it your way, if you "win" and get rid of what ever ads you are complaining about, the advertisers will just flood the existing mediums you use such as internet, social media, websites, flyers, newspapers, radio ads, with more ads to make up for the ads they lost. like I said before, it wont help the situation and you will cause a ripple in the matrix and companies will just find another way to shove ads down your throat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,090 Posts
I would rather have just a few tv channels with no ads or minimal ads than hundreds of channels with ads.
But I was brought up with the BBC and a single commercial channel with ( back then) just 3x3 minute breaks per hour so I admit to bias.
The worst thing is the CBC. That channel should not have any advertising at all.

Anyway. I watch TVO with no ads.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,772 Posts
Dont get me wrong, just like others on here im not fond of ads and commercials, i dislike them just like everybody else, but I know how the industry works and im just letting you know that if you complain to get your way, you might think you won but the industry will just shift the advertising dollars elsewhere and flood us in another way and in the end no one will win cus now you will piss off a whole new group of demographics and nothing will get solved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
We used to have rules here limiting the amount of ad time in a show. There's a big difference between communist countries and letting business have whatever it wants. History has proven that business needs to be controlled by adequate regulation. It was the deregulation of the U.S. financial industry that allowed the 2008 crash to happen. It was lack of regulation and enforcement that led to the Lac Megantic train wreck that killed so many people. I've really had it with business that say get rid of the regulations and we'll be good, only to not do what's necessary if it hurts the bottom line. Certainly there has been some bad regulation over the years, but allowing business to do what it wants, unencumbered by regulations will always lead to disaster. We've been there before, many, many times.
It was actually Government intervention(regulation) that caused the crash of 2008. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, creating the housing bubble by forcing banks to provide sub-prime mortgages to low income families....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Over flowing ads

The worst offenders are the two comic channels in my area of Ontario. The constant promos of what is coming or what is available "soon" on the two channels. These promos go on forever and sometimes are repeated twice in a row. Stupid jerks who program these constant repeats need a swift kick up the side of their bubbleheaded heads with a baseball bat. Allow me to have the first swing please. Why are 8-year-olds in knee pants given such authority? sailmaker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Sounds like Paolo has a vested interest in ads. We all have an idea how the "industry " works and are expressing our disapproval of it and the lack of alternatives other than not watching or not buying. Advertisers and Networks should have a little more respect for the viewers and not the corporate greed that appears to motivate them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I'm a first time satellite user after 2 decades of having only internet. I got the shaw limited promo which claims 23423 channels included or whatever, but from my perspective, there are only 10 that are watchable, because of the ads, and maybe 15 watchable if I use the PVR. The Corus specialty channels are unwatchable because the audio levels fluctuate wildly nearing inaudible to pain level. Obviously I don't have any interest in the 234 sports channels (maybe I would if they had actual sports rather than mostly gum flapping).

Oh and after all that Shaw doesn't even have RT.

The Hollywood Suite free preview has me excited though, so cheap for so much great entertainment and totally ad free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,242 Posts
It was actually Government intervention(regulation) that caused the crash of 2008. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, creating the housing bubble by forcing banks to provide sub-prime mortgages to low income families....
Sub prime mortgages were only one part of that problem. The other was the "prime" mortgage backed securities, that were essentially a pile of subprime mortgages bundled together. You can put a pretty bow on a pile of garbage, but you still have a pile of garbage.

Regardless, the problem is business is doing more and more that decreases value to and often harms the consumer. So, we not only have less TV show in an hour, to make room for more ads, but also ads during the show. We also have, as mentioned in another thread, too many channels, with endless repeats. Yet we're forced to pay for all those channels, whether we want them or not. Also, many of those channels no longer resemble what they were licensed for. On example is Bravo. That used to have concerts and such, but now it's just another channel with programs that are often repeated from another channel. Other channels, such as A&E or The Learning Channel used to be good, but are now essentially a garbage dump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,772 Posts
I don't have a vested interested in ads and I knew someone sneaky like you would make such stupid remark. Sometimes people like you need to realize the truth even if we hate to agree but unsaid before I Hate Ads. You heard me say that but you have to twist crap around and make a stupid uneducated comment instead of accepting the fact that hey maybe Paolo is right about the industry. Go figure. Its people like you who cause people like me of being shills or shillings or shrills of companies even tho I have no evidence and you just want someone to point the finger at and yet you are not bright enough to realize I'm on the same side as you I agree to everything you and others talk a bout but thats how you treat fellow friendship on here go figure maybe u need your own forum instead and just for people like you. Now stop it. No body likes people like you and your wrong also.

I was the one who also told that going from 3 to 2 year contracts will Jack up prices but guess what it was easier to call me a vested interest AKA SHRILL. prices went up cus I know how the industry worked or predicted their move? OKAY THERE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
subtle product placement ads

Today I saw more examples of Bell's self-serving cross-promoting.

First, a family member was watching an episode of CTV's "The Marilyn Denis Show" that had some special "Marilyn's 10 Days of Giveaways" thing for audience members. Hmm, guess what part of the first giveaway was? A two-month subscription to Cravetv, of course! What an utter surprise that a Bell produced-and-distributed show would give away a service from a different arm of Bell. :rolleyes:
Even worse, both Marilyn and "tech expert" Amber MacArthur proceeded to give their over-the-top personal endorsement for Crave TV, as if their overlord Bell Media hadn't persuaded them to do it.
Then, on Bell-owned CP24, inbetween their usual flow of general news, they had a weekend 'breakfast' segment about gift ideas with a guest from The Source pitching the "I want that" slogan for crap sold at Bell's retail stores.
Neither of these two channels ever said a peep about the fact that the parent company also owns The Source and Crave TV. It's funny how so-called journalists still feel obliged to disclose when they report news stories that relate to any potential corporate conflict of interest, but when newscasts throw to lifestyle/magazine puff pieces, it's somehow okay to take advantage of viewers by giving free publicity to other BCE-companies without mentioning the relationship. :|
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
So in pursuit of ad-free channels, how do we identify them? I have lost all tolerance for ads in all forms (except for logos in the background of a movie and that sort of thing). So I search the guide for a movie called 'Idiocracy', and see that it happens to be upcoming on a particular channel called 'FXX HD', and so being a discriminating shopper, I begin to consider subscribing to this channel, but not if it is just another ad polluted station of course. That's the way I roll. Don't hate the player, hate the game. One in the hand is worth two in the bush. Don't eat yellow snow.

Is there some simple way to know if the channel is ad-free?

EDIT: Brought to you by Carls Junior!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,695 Posts
If it's TVO, TCM or a premium movie channel it will be ad free. That's only during the programming. There are lots of ads between shows. PBS is mostly ad free but watch out for the pledge drives. There may be other ad free channels I missed. If you hate ads, don't even consider watching a CTV owned channel. They are the worst when it comes to advertising pollution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,090 Posts
ExDilbert. Yes CTV is bad but the worst is the CBC's Documentary channel. Not only are the ad breaks as long as allowed but they double stack ads and show the sort of ads that other channels would consider to bad to be shown...that is the really silly ones, the modern equivalent of those Ktel ads of the 70's. Many good programs...if you have a PVR.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
I like that we now have shows that are full length advertisements. I work in advertising, and there are shows that are looking for freebies or pay to have your business featured

AMAZING RACE CANADA is my favourite example of a show that is pure advertising - what a joke. CTV comes to our business every year looking to do a segment at one of our facilities and using our products. They want big $$$. If you watch the show is stacked with advertising from start to finish.

I think they had one segment last year that had 7 products (car, gas station, food at the gas station, drink at the gas station, credit card, a TV show, and electronics) all part of one competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,695 Posts
Product placement has been happening since TV went public. It happens in movies as well. It's just a lot more blatant now. I'm amazed at what some talk show personalities get away with. I've seen them do segments with tables full of a single manufacturerer's products in what is supposed to be an informative piece. I don't know how much they get paid but it must be substantial. Then there are the "doctors" who flog devices and supplements that they have a major interest in. Timothy Leary almost got it right 50 years ago, except for modern network TV it should be turn off, tune out, drop the ads.

Then there is TCM, still commercial free after all these years. How do they do it when networks like CTV whinge about losing money despite their overabundance of advertising placement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
TCM's method of monetization involves selling products related to its output, such as a wine club with films attached to them, and collections of restored/remastered classic movies. Plus, also note that the channel is owned by a company who also owns a film studio (Time Warner), and that its operations are likely subsidized by all of its other properties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
Anytime you see any product on TV or in a movie, it has been placed there on purpose or for other considerations. It's not limited to scripted or reality shows - even the news everything is placed (including clothing, jewelry, etc) for a reason.

There is more advertising then most people realize on TV or in movies. In some cases, even the way things are worded, without showing or mentioning a specific product, are there to invoke a brand or category by the brand leader.

A classic example is Marlboro and the Ferrari Formula 1 team - tobacco sponsorship has been banned for over 15 years now, yet Ferrari kept colour schemes, imagery, and other invocations of Marlboro since the tobacco ban, and Marlboro is still a primary sponsor even though you will never see a Marlboro logo anywhere with the team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,695 Posts
I doubt that TCM's product or activity sales are anywhere close to providing enough money for it's financing. Most of TCM's revenue comes from carriage fees on US BDUs. They have secured carriage on basic cable and satellite packages in order to have enough customers and accompanying revenues for their operations. That's a model used by a number of US stations that have limited or no ads. It was originally also a requirement for carriage in Canada. Shaw was the first BDU to carry TCM and they put it in their basic package. CRTC regulations now prohibit such requirements. Bell refused to carry TCM until it was allowed to bundle it with TMN.

These days, product placement is more conspicuous by it's absence than its presence. Everything is so "branded" that an odd shaped bottle or package, or a made up or missing product logo are more noticeable than the use of a real product. An unusual car where they don't flash the maker's crest or make and model can be frustration because we all want to be able to identify it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
CityTV has been getting ridiculous with ads for the Hyundai Kona SUV and it's making me somewhat glad I don't watch that channel live. Not only is the car commercial on almost every single commercial break, but they are also now splicing the ad into little 3 second clips that also air during the same commercial blocks, and a separate station promo that also features the car. Oh, AND they naturally had to add a banner ad for it in the middle of the show I was watching too!

CTV was pulling a similar stunt with a Newfoundland commercial during the evening news, but at least that's one wasn't screaming "Newfoundland" during each tiny clip.

Grrrrrrrr

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top